Professional Documents
Culture Documents
NorthHolland
This paper empirically examines hypotheses from the accounting, manufacturing, and strategy
literatures about volume-based, complexity-based, and efficiency-based drivers of manufacturing
overhead costs. Cross-sectional data from a questionnaire of thirty-seven facilities of an electron-
ics company are examined. Subject to caveats regarding the cross-sectional tests, strongest
empirical association is found for volume-related cost drivers. There is not consistently strong
empirical association for complexity- or efficiency-related drivers. Explanations for the limited
association for the complexity- and efficiency-related drivers include proxy problems with the
complexity and efficiency concepts and problems in developing uniform measures of variables
across a broad cross-section of facilities.
1. Introduction
*George Foster is Paul L. and Phyllis Wattis Professor of Accounting and Mahendra Gupta is a
Ph.D. student at Stanford University. This paper benefited greatly from our interactions with
munerous personnel of Electronics Inc. Workshop participants at A&M-University of New South
Wales, Harvard University, Stanford University, University of Alberta, University of California at
Berkeley, University of Rochester, and University of Western Australia, and participants at
CAM-I conferences in London and San Diego provided many helpful comments and suggestions.
The detailed comments of A. Atkinson, R. Ball, W. Beaver, S. Beckman, N. Dopuch, C. Horngren.
M. Jensen, R. Kaplan, M. McNichols, E. Noreen, P. Reiss, P. Stamats, R. Watts, M. Weiss and
J. Zimmerman (the referee and editor) were much appreciated.
A cost driver is defined to be any activity that results in costs being incurred.
variables.* The empirical support presented in the literature for these criti-
cisms is limited. In particular, there is minimal empirical evidence on the
relative importance of complexity- or efficiency-based variables vis-a-vis vol-
ume-based variables in explaining MOH differences across different facilities
or of the same facility over time.
This paper uses the largest firm-specific MOH data base reported to date in
the literature. Cross-sectional data from 37 facilities of a multinational elec-
tronics company (called Electronics Inc.) are examined. There are two major
sets of findings. First, there is strong empirical association between volume-
based variables and MOH levels across facilities. Second, after controlling for
scale differences, there is not a strong association between complexity or
efficiency variables and MOH levels across the 37 facilities of Electronics Inc.
Two explanations for this second finding that warrant much attention in
subsequent research are noted in this paper, i.e., (i) the problem of identifying
variables that adequately capture the complexity and efficiency concepts and
(ii) the problem of developing consistent measures of complexity and efficiency
variables across a cross-section of different facilities.
Subsequent sections of this paper are structured as follows. Section 2
discusses MOH cost drivers and summarizes the limited existing empirical
evidence in this area. The methodology underlying our research is outlined in
section 3. Descriptive statistics on Electronics Inc. and details of the cost
driver variables used to probe the descriptive validity of hypothesized MOH
cost driver relations are in section 4. Issues that arise in using cross-sectional
data to empirically examine cost driver relationships are discussed in section 5.
These issues include scale differences across the facilities and differences in
their cost functions. Results are presented and examined in sections 6 and 7.
Section 8 makes general comments about field-based management accounting
research. Summary comments are in section 9.
MOH=f(v,C, E),
See, for example, Cooper and Kaplan (1987) Johnson and Kaplan (1987). and Berliner and
Brimson (1988).
%ources in the accounting literature include cost accounting texts and research papers included
in National Association of Accountants (1986), Bruns and Kaplan (1987), Capettini and chancy
(1987). and Berliner and Brimson (1988). Manufacturing sources include Clark, Hayes, and
Lorenx (1985). Hayes and Wheelwright (1984). Hayes, Wheelwright, and Clark (1988). and
Schonberger (1982, 1986). Strategy sources include Abegglen and Stalk (1985) and Porter (1985).
G.Faster andM. Gupta,Cast&ver analysis 311
where
Y = volume-related drivers,
C = complexity-related drivers, and
E = efficiency-related drivers.
Volume-related drivers can relate to either the size of the facility or the level of
output from the facility. A positive correlation is hypothesized between V and
MOH.
Complexity can arise in a variety of areas that influence the level of MOH.
Five areas of complexity are identified in this paper: product design, procure-
ment, manufacturing process, product range, and distribution. A positive
correlation is hypothesized in each of these areas between the level of complex-
ity and MOH.
Eficiency refers to the relation between inputs and outputs. The lower the
level of inputs for a given level of outputs, the more efficient the operations.
The manufacturing literature currently is emphasizing two areas related to
efficiency:
1. Time-bused: Activities that reduce the through-put time for assembling
products are viewed as increasing efficiency.
2. Nonualue-added: Eliminating activities that result in costs being incurred
without any change in the product or service as perceived by the customer
is viewed as increasing efficiency.
More efficient operations are hypothesized to have lower levels of MOH.
The volume, complexity, and efficiency classes of cost drivers need not be
mutually exclusive. For example, efforts to increase efficiency can involve
reduction in one or more areas of complexity. Nor are the volume, complexity,
and efficiency classes of cost drivers viewed as collectively exhaustive. For
example, variables related to the work force (such as the relative use of quality
circles or cost reduction circles) potentially explain MOH differences across
facilities or over time.
The above model of MOH cost drivers is presented in its most general form.
At this stage in research, little is known about exact functional relations or
about how these three classes of MOH cost drivers interact with each other.
Correlation analysis is adopted in this paper. We view this approach as
appropriate, especially given the small number of data points (maximum of
37) available for each variable. Our analysis is more modest than an attempt to
estimate an hypothesized MOH cost function for the 37 facilities of Electron-
ics Inc.
data analysis presented to support their suggestions. One of the 8rst detailed
studies was Miller and Vollmann (1985) - field investigations included exten-
sive tours and interviews at four plants in the electronics industry (p. 145).
The authors proposed a transactions-based approach to MOH costs:
In the hidden factory, where the bulk of manufacturing overhead costs
accumulates, the real driving force comes from transactions, not physical
products. These transactions involve exchanges of the materials and/or
information necessary to move production along but do not directly result
in physical products. (p. 144)
Much of the Miller-Vollmann research involved identifying the many areas
where MOH-related transactions could be generated. Emphasis was placed on
complexity-based transactions. However, they provided no evidence that plants
with fewer transactions have lower MOH costs.
Cooper and Kaplan (1987) illustrate how the use of complexity-related
variables to allocate indirect costs can affect the estimates of individual
product costs. One complexity example (Schrader Bellows) presented was
based on machine setups:
Low-volume products create more transactions per unit manufactured
than their high-volume counterparts. The per unit share of these costs
should therefore be higher for the low-volume products.. , Most of the
transactions that generate work for support departments can be proxied
by the number of setups. For example, the movement of material in the
plant is often related to the commencement or completion of a produc-
tion run. (pp. 218-219)
An officer of Schrader Bellows recomputed product costs using the number of
setups to allocate a sizable percentage of the support-department costs to
products. The change in the reported product costs ranged from about minus
10 percent to plus 1,000 percent (pp. 219-220). However, there was no
empirical documentation in the paper that MOH costs for Schrader Bellows
changed over time as a function of changes in the number of machine setups.4
3. Research methodology
In March 1987, Corporate Manufacturing and a facility of Electronics Inc.
jointly administered a questionnaire survey. This survey was sent to 38
separate facilities that were located in the continental U.S.A. The introduction
See also Banker and Johnston (1988) and Banker, Datar, Kekre. and Mukhopadhyay (1989).
G. Fmter and M. Gupta, Cart driver analysis 313
J.hE.-N
314 G. Foster and M. Gupta, Cost driver analysis
SElectronics Inc. has a set of guidelines for measuring aggregate overhead costs at each facility.
These aggregate categories are total MOH, procurement MOH, production MOH, and support
MOH. However. there is some dearee of tlexibilitv in measurinn the subcateaories of these MOH
cost categories. For allocating M6H costs to products, EIectroks Inc. hasno rigid requirement
that is uniformly adopted.
?he above distribution statistics follow Electronics Inc.s policy of including direct labor
payroll taxes and benefits as a component of MOH. The inferences drawn in this paper were
unchanged when direct labor payroll taxes and benefits were excluded from MOH and included
as a component of direct labor cost; under this definition the mean ratio of direct labor costs to
total manufacturing costs is 0.113.
Electronics Inc. has facilities that assemble computer-related products and facilities that
assemble instrument-related products. The American Electronic Association (1985) reports the
following average manufacturing cost structure for firms in these two industries:
Computers (41 respondents) Instruments (97 respondents)
Direct materials 0.675 0.545
Direct labor 0.065 0.131
Manufacturing overhead 0.260 0.324
Electronics Inc. is similar to the average firm in the AEA survey in that manufacturing overhead
is the second most important category of manufacturing costs.
G. Foster und M Gupta, Cost driver analysis 315
Pert
100
60
40
CFacility 1 Facility 37 3
Fig. 1. Percentage analysis of total manufacturing costs into direct materials, direct labor, and
overhead categories for 37 facilities.
Fig. 3. Percentage analysis of total manufacturing overhead into procurement, production, and
support for 37 facilities.
Facilities differ in the way support MOH is allocated. For example, one facility uses
headcount in procurement and production, while another facility uses dollar MOH costs in the
procurement and production categories as the allocation base.
The data in table 1 has been transformed to preserve confidentiality. The inferences were not
changed by this transformation.
Table 1
Descriptive statistics for MOH cost pools and accounting and manufacturing variables.
Percentiles
K-Sb
Category/variables N Mean 0.10 0.50 0.90 .7
Panel B: Volume
Plant size
VI.1 Total manufacturing space 37 103017 33698 76200 211287 1.12
VI.2 Avg. total headcount in mamhcturing 37 453 143 340 1079 1.05
VI.3 Installed machinery and equipment 37 6578 1870 5267 15566 1.12
Plant output
V2.I Direct labor dollars 33 2847 598 1952 7346 0.92
V2.2 Direct material dollars 36 29560 4738 25689 64681 0.97
V2.3 Total ending inventory dollars 35 14247 2936 10870 30234 1.00
Panel C: Complexiy
Number of observations.
bKoImogorov-Smirov z-statistic.
CSigniticant at 5% level.
G, Fosrer and M. Gupta, Cost driver analysis 319
panels B to D of table 1. Marked differences across the facilities exist for these
variables. For example, the 0.10 and 0.90 de&s for the number of products
are 7 and 725, respectively.
The Kolmogorov-Smimov test for normality [see Siegel (1956)] is also
reported for the variables in table 1. The complexity set of variables show the
most departure from normality; nine of the nineteen variables in this category
(see panel C of table 1) reject the normality assumption at the 0.05 significance
level. The frequency with which the normality assumption is rejected in table 1
motivates the use of nonparametric as well as parametric tests in the data
analysis. A second motivation is that linearity did not appear to consistently
describe plots of the relation between individual variables and MOH costs.
(I) High correlations reflect that Ml and M2 are the underlying cost
drivers or are highly correlated with the underlying cost drivers.
(II) High correlations reflect scale differences and/or heterogeneity among
cost functions in the sample. High correlations can arise without any causality
between the cost drivers and MOH costs at any one or more facilities. An
example of scale differences is when larger facilities have higher direct labor
dollars and higher MOH costs. The extensive literature on estimating cost
functions from cross-sectional data often attempts to factor scale differences
into a research design by examining correlation evidence after abstracting
from scale effects. Differences in cost functions in a cross-section can arise in
several ways, e.g., due to differences in manufacturing processes, or differences
in products assembled, or differences in the scale of operations. One approach
here is to partition the sample into more homogeneous subsamples.
Consider the following example of a firm with N different plants, each with
a different scale of operations. * Assume that within each plant the MOH costs
do not vary with different levels of direct labor costs. If larger plants happen
to have more direct labor costs, it is possible that in any cross-sectional sample
A table of painvise correlations among the 34 variables is available from the authors. The six
volume-based variables have higher level of correlations among pairwise correlations than do the
nineteen complexity- or nine efficiency-based variables.
Discussion of estimation issues associated with cross-sectional data is in Lev and Sunder
(1979). Benston. Hanweck. and Humphrey (1982). and Scherer (1984, esp. pp. 169-255).
l2 We are indebted to Jerry Zimmerman for this example.
320 G. Foster and M. Gupta, Cost driver amnjuis
a very high correlation between MOH costs and direct labor costs will be
found. This possibility can arise, for example, if the efficient scale of opera-
tions for each facility happens to be highly correlated (in a cross-sectional
sense) with differences in the direct labor dollars at each facility.
The research design in this paper uses several approaches to reduce the
likelihood of (II) above explaining the results. First we examine partial
correlations as well as correlation evidence. The procedure used to compute
the partial correlations will be illustrated with respect to total MOH and
direct labor dollars. Total revenues at each facility is used as the scale factor.13
The two steps in this procedure are:
?n a factor analysis study of the independent variables (available from the authors), revenue
was highly correlated with the first factor identified in the data base; this first factor was derived
from variables predominantly representing volume-related drivers.
G. Faster and M. Gupta, Cost driver analysis 321
As a sensitivity check, correlations were also computed for truncated samples [deleting (i) the
top and bottom. (ii) the top 2 and bottom 2:and (iii) the top 3 and bottom 3 observations]. This
analysis did not change the inferences drawn from the correlations in table 2.
322 G. Foster and M. Gupta, Cost driver ana!ysi.s
PANEL A
TotalMOH (S Thousands)
50000
PANEL B
TotalMOH (S Thousands)
o+ I
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
NumkofConsumPriceListedP~~~Iucts
PANEL C
TotalMOH (S Thousands)
20000
l * l
10000
0.
*
;;y l . . . :
1 l
q
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
#ofProductionChangeOrders/Av.Month
Fig. 4. Plots of total MOH with (a) direct labor dollars, (b) number of consumer price listed
products, and (c) number of production change orders in an average month.
Table 2
Correlation between MOH cost pools and accounting and manufacturing variables.
Panel A: Volume
Plunr sire
VI.1 Total manufacturing space + 0.90c 0.62 0.87 0.F 0.79 0.32 0.82 0.50c 0.W o.49c
VI.2 Avg. total headcount in
manufacturing + 0.97c 0.88 0.94= o.86c 0.91C 0.44 0.87= 0.81 0.88 0.56
VI.3 Installed machinery and equipment + 0.89 0.69 0.83 0.65 0.76 0.22 0.84 0.66 o.70c o.59c
Plunt output
v2.1 Direct labor dollars + 0.94c 0.81 0.85 0.73 0.72 0.12 0.85 0.77 0.71 0.45
v2.2 Direct material dollars + 0.79 -0.17 0.73c -0.17 0.82 -0.12 0.59c -0.14 0.78 - 0.30=
V2.3 Total ending inventory dollars + 0.90 0.76 OMC 0.66 0.86 0.3T 0.72 0.57 0.89 0.68=
Panel B: Complexity
Table 2 (continued)
-
Procurement Production support
Total MOH MOH MOH MOH
Category/variables P.S.b Pearson Spearman *arman Spearman
corr. Part. Corr. Part. corr. Part. corr. Part. corr. Part.
hfanuji2cturing compkxi~
process
c3.1 ExtemaIsubcontractingas46
of direct material s - 0.42 0.3T 0.20 0.38c 0.20 0.24 0.32 0.44 0.09 0.06
C3.2 Corp. subcontracting as 96
of direct material s - -0.12 - 0.06 - 0.08 -0.07 0.04 0.16 -0.14 - 0.05 -0.04 -0.04
c3.3 Avg. # of material flow transaction/
month + 0.48= 0.11 0.52= 0.11 0.W - 0.04 0.42 0.14 0.59c 0.21
Product range complexi~
c4.1 # of products on consumer price list + 0.10 0.21 0.35= 0.5T 0.20 0.19 0.36 0.W 0.38f 0.59=
c4.2 Avg. # of options shipped/month + 0.29 - 0.29d 0.46 -0.15 0.47E -0.10 o.45c -0.10 0.36 0.04
c4.3 Avg.#of ac4xssoriesshipped/
month + 0.29 - 0.36 0.67E - 0.17 0.62 -0.2P o.59c -0.12 0.68= 0.06
c.4.4 # of CPL products with 80%
of business + 0.29 0.58c 0.42c 0.65 0.22 0.20 0.W 0.62 0.36 0.61
c4.s # of new products introduced
this year + 0.16 0.30= 0.41= 0.42 0.34 0.13 0.40= 0.40 0.41= 0.45
Distributionmmplexiry
cs.1 Avg, # of customer orders
P=e=d/mon& + o.55c -0.00 0.65 -0.05 0.67 -0.04 0.W -0.07 osO= 0.08
cs.2 % of orders which were intemal - - 0.23 -0.88E -0.12 -0.22 -0.16 -0.15 -0.20 - 0.26d - 0.05 - 0.07
cs.3 Total number of customers + 0.20 0.17 0.35= 0.00 0.5T 0.36 0.3T 0.06 0.29E - 0.28d
Table 2 (continued)
Panel C: Ef/ierq
Manufactuhg ejkiencv
El.1 Avg. prod.: Cycle ti&in days + 0.56 0.26d 0.49= 0.10 0.34= -0.21 0.56 0.19 0.37 0.21
El.2 %ofmfgengtimeonproccss
improvement - -0.17 -0.33c -0.15 -0.29d -0.07 -0.04 -0.15 -0.26d -0.12 - 0.25d
El .3 % of CIM effort on quality/process
improvement - - 0.08 -0.14 -0.14 -0.30c -0.11 -0.47c -0.14 -0.18 -0.12 -0.14
Nonvolue-added activities
E2.1 Months of supply of inventory
maintained + 0.26d 0.33= 0.30= 0.49c 0.22d 0.17 0.27d 0.4T 0.40= 0.50=
E2.2 WIP as !S of total ending inventory + 0.39= 0.09 0.39= o.39c 0.30= 0.21 0.46= 0.43= 0.17 0.13
E2.3 # of production chauge orders
avg. month + 0.34= 0.29d 0.46 0.27d o.43c 0.28d 0.48 o.34c 0.40= 0.17
E2.4 !b products built to stock + 0.40c -0.17 0.46= -0.17 0.43= -0.11 0.38c -0.21 0.47 -0.15
E2.5 Total rework dollars + 0.3F 0.27d 0.38E 0.20 0.37c 0.05 0.27d 0.16 0.23d
E2.6 Total scrap dollars + 0.43= 0.12 0.34= 0.20 0.30c 0.01 0.28d 0.19 :::. = 0.07
Corr. = correlation between hfOH costs and @deflated) cost driver variable. Part. = partial correlation between MOH cost and cost driver
variable; partial correlations computed using two-step procedure described in text (revenues used as the scale variable). One-tailed r-test is used to test
thehsignificance of Pearson correlation coefficients. One-tailed z-statistic is used to test sigoificance of Spearman correlation coeffici*ts.
Pwdkted sign.
csignikant at 5% level.
d .
Squiticant at 10% level.
326 G. FasterandM. Gupta,Costdriver anoiysis
category that are significantly correlated with total MOH costs are:
Pearson Spearman
Cost driver category Partial Partial
of variables Correlations correlations Correlations correlations
The only volume-based cost driver not significantly correlated with MOH
costs when partial correlations are examined is direct material dollars.
The highly significant correlations l5 between MOH costs and direct labor
dollars is surprising to many, especially given that direct labor (as defined by
Electronics Inc.) comprises only 6.6% of total manufacturing costs. However,
Electronics Inc. is not highly automated in its manufacturing. Depreciation
comprises less than 10% of production MOH and is only the sixth most
important subcategory of production MOH (see fig. 2). The direct labor work
areas in many of Electronics facilities appear to be labor-paced rather than
machine-paced. l6
When computing these correlations, we follow the Electronics Inc. treatment of direct labor
payroll taxes and benefits (DLPTB) as a component of production MOH. The inferences drawn
from table 2 were unchanged when DLPTB was included as a component of direct labor.
16A labor-paced manufacturing environment is where worker dexterity and productivity deter-
mine the speed of production. In a machine-paced manufacturing environment machines conduct
most (or all) phases of production; workers focus their activity on the minimization of machine
problems rather than on the actual operations of the machines. See Homgren and Foster (1987,
pp. 450-451) for further discussion.
G. Farterand M. Gupta, Cost driver anabsis 327
7. Discussion of results
Possible explanations for the volume-based variables having high correla-
tions with MOH costs include:
(1) Volume-based variables are important cost drivers for MOH at Elec-
tronics Inc. There is evidence to support this proposition. Some subcategories
of total MOH are directly related to volume-based variables such as direct
labor dollars, e.g., direct labor payroll taxes and benefits. Plant tours at
Efectronics Inc. facilities provided insight into the observed high correlations
for the total headcount in manufacturing variable. Activities at many MOH
subcategories are highly labor-intensive, e.g., materials purchasing and process
engineering. The importance of headcount as an explanatory variable means
that controlling MOH costs at Electronics Inc. translates in large part to
controlling the variables that drive headcount.
(2) High correlations are an artifact of methodological problems with the
use of cross-sectional data. Section 5 discusses the problems in more detail.
Given the data available to us and our limited knowledge of cost functions in
the electronics industry, the steps we take in section 6 to reduce problems
associated with scale effects and nonhomogeneous cost functions still leave us
a long way from making the problems with examining cross-sectional data
minor.
(3) The volume-based variables found to be significantly correlated with
MOH are themselves driven by complexity or efficiency variables.
The explanations for the limited empirical support for complexity and
efficiency variables include:
(1) Complexity and efficiency variables are indeed less significant cost
drivers than are volume-based variables at Electronics Inc.
(2) The complexity and efficiency notions are more imperfectly operational-
ized by the variables examined in this research than is volume. Consider
manufacturing process complexity. One area not included in the questionnaire
relates to technical uncertainties associated with manufacturing. Some Efec-
tronics Inc. facilities have very simple assembly-type operations. Other facili-
ties are utilizing frontier technology for which many process manufacturing
issues are yet to be resolved. It is likely that these differences result in different
levels of MOH. (These differences also increase the inference problems arising
from production function differences across the 37 facilities examined.)
See Ball and Foster (1982) for further discussion of proxy problems in empirical research in
accounting. An excellent basic reference is Cook and Campbell (1979).
328 G. Fvster and M. Gupta, Cart driver analysis
(3) The complexity and efficiency variables examined are less consistently
measured in each facility than are the volume variables. This problem is
especially severe in a questionnaire where some questions relate to items not
systematically recorded by all facilities. For example, very few facilities of
Efectronics Inc. have on-line recording of production cycle time. Even where
variables are recorded on-line, Electronics Inc. operates with a high degree of
decentralization and devotes few resources to developing uniform definitions
of manufacturing variables across their facilities. It is of interest that interfacil-
ity uniformity problems are likely to be greater for the complexity and
efficiency variables than for volume-based variables such as headcount, rev-
enue, and direct material dollars. For many volume-based variables there are
institutionalized pressures from nonmanufacturing sources for the develop-
ment of uniform data bases (e.g., for reporting of labor statistics to external
bodies and from internal and external auditing procedures).
*Additional discussion of field based research issues is in Yin (1984) and Harvard Business
School, The Characteristics of @ml Clinical Research - extracts reprinted in Bruns and Kaplan
(1987, pp. S-7).
G. Faster and M. Gupta,Cast driver analysis 331
abled us to have a set of contacts to discuss issues that arose in the preliminary
data analysis.
9. summary
The accounting, manufacturing, and strategy literatures are paying increas-
ing attention to manufacturing overhead cost drivers. This paper is an early
attempt to present evidence on the hypothesized relations. Most analysis to
date has been either prescriptive (e.g., suggestions as to the important drivers)
or illustrative (e.g., showing how product costs differ if machine setup is an
important driver).
Subject to caveats regarding the use of cross-sectional data from plants
using different production processes, strongest empirical support is found in
the Electronics Inc. MOH data for volume-based variables, e.g., total head-
count in manufacturing and direct labor dollars. There is limited empirical
support for complexity- or efficiency-based variables, once controls are made
for scale differences across the facilities. Plant tours and interviews with
Electronics Inc. personnel highlighted two possible explanations for this find-
ing:
1. the complexity and efficiency notions are more imperfectly operationalized
by the variables examined in this research, and
2. the complexity and efficiency variables examined are less consistently
measured in each facility than are the volume variables.
Subsequent empirical research on MOH cost drivers faces the challenge of
controlling for differences in using data from different production processes
while seeking ways to reduce the importance of these two explanations for any
observed findings.
The questionnaire was relatively long (16 pages); a maximum of 292 data
items could be obtained from each questionnaire. Issues that arise in examin-
ing this data include:
(1) Potential differences in the interpretation of terms. Respondents were
given a person to contact to answer queries related to the questionnaire. That
person received 41 phone calls. A log was kept on these queries. Three areas of
the questionnaire caused the most problems:
l Questions related to average product and the number of separate products
at each facility. Some respondents believed there was no average product.
Respondents also noted that minute product variations might technically
give rise to numerous listed products when there was over 95% commonality
332 G. Foster and M. Gupta, Capt driver ana@s
(2) Data not applicable to the facility. For example, questions relating to
the assembly process were not applicable to divisions only having fabrication
operations.
(3) Data not available because the facility collects data at a more aggregate
level or in a different format than that requested by the questionnaire. For
example, one facility reported the direct labor supervision, other indirect
labor, and production management subcategories of production MOH as an
aggregate figure. Direct labor dollars were reported for 33 of the 37 facilities;
4 facilities no longer separately track direct labor, including it in production
MOH.
(4) Data not available because the facility did not complete all items in the
questionnaire for which they had the data internally. Facilities at Electronics
Inc. operate with a high degree of decentralization and do not always fully
respond to corporate information requests from corporate headquarters. The
response rate for individual items was higher for the first half of the question-
naire than for the second half. (Many Electronics Inc. personnel interviewed
expressed amazement at the relatively high overall response rate. The per-
ceived importance of the topic was frequently given as the reason why
facihties devoted considerable resources responding to the questionnaire.)
Out of 10,804 possible data points there were 1,751 not applicable and 907
not available; 8,146 data points were available for analysis.
2. Plant output
2. Procurement complexity
5. Distribution complexity
1. Manufacturing eficiency
2. Nonvalue-added activities
References
Abegglen, J. and G. Stalk, 1985. Kaisha: The Japanese corporation (Basic Books, New York, NY).
American Electronics Association, 1985, 1985-86 operating ratios survey (American Electronics
Association, Palo Alto, CA).
Ball, R. and G. Foster, 1982, Corporate financial reporting: A methodological review of empirical
research, Supplement to Journal of Accounting Research 20,161-234.
Banker. R.D. and H.H. Johnston, 1988, Cost driver analysis in the service sector: An empirical
study of U.S. airlines, Working paper (Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA).
Banker, R.D.. SM. Datar, S. Kekre, and T. Mukhopadhyay, 1989, Costs of product and process
complexity, Working paper (Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA).
Benston, G.J., G.A. Hanweck, and D.B. Humphrey, 1982, Scale economies in banking: A
restructuring and reassessment, Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking 14,435-456.
Berliner, C. and J.A. Brimson, 1988, Cost management for todays advanced manufacturing: The
CAM-I conceptual design (Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA).
Bruns, W.J. and R.S. Kaplan, eds., 1987, Accounting and management: Field study perspectives
(Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA).
Capettini, R. and D.K. Clancy, eds., 1987, Cost accounting, robotics, and the new manufacturing
environment (American Accounting Association, Sarasota, FL).
Clark, K.B., R.H. Hayes, and C. Lorena, eds., 1985, The uneasy alliance: Managing the productiv-
ity-technology dilemma (Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA).
Cook, T.D. and D.T. Campbell, 1979, Quasi-expeiimentation: Design and analysis issues for field
settings (Rand McNally, Chicago, IL).
Cooper, R. and R.S. Kaplan, 1987, How ccst accounting systematically distorts product costs, in:
W.J. Bruns and R.S. Kaplan, eds., 1987, Accounting and management: Field study perspec-
tives (Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA) 204-228.
Harvard Business School, 1985, The characteristics of good clinical research, Mimeo.
Hayes, R.H. and SC. Wheelwright, 1984, Restoring our competitive edge: Competing through
manufacturing (Wiley, New York, NY).
G. Foster and hf. Gym, Cast ariver analysis 337
Hayes, R.H.. S.C. Wheelwright, and K.B. Clark, 1988, Dynamic manufacturing: Creating the
learning organization (The Free Press, New York, NY).
Horngren, C. and G. Foster, 1987, Cost accounting: A managerial emphasis, 6th ed. (Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ).
Johnson, H.T. and R.S. Kaplan, 1987, The rise and fall of management accounting, Management
Accounting, Jan.. 22-30.
Lev. B. and S. Sunder, 1979. Methodological issues in the use of financial ratios, Journal of
Accounting and Economics 1,187-210.
Miller, J.G. and T.E. Vollmann, 1985, The hidden factory, Harvard Business Review, Sept./Ott..
142-150.
National Association of Accountants, 1986, Cost accounting for the 90s: The challenge of
technological change (National Association of Accountants, Montvale, NJ).
Porter, M.E., 1985. Competitive advantage (The Free Press, New York, NY).
Scherer, F.M.. 1984. Innovation and growth: Schumpeterian perspectives (MIT Press, Cambridge,
MA).
Schonberger, R.J., 1982. Japanese manufacturing techniques: Nine hidden lessons in simplicity
(The Free Press, New York, NY).
Schonberger, R.J.. 1986, World class manufacturing: The lessons of simplicity applied (The Free
Press, New York, NY).
Siegel. S., 1956, Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences (McGraw-Hill, New York,
NY).
Yamane. T.. 1973, Statistics: An introductory analysis (Harper & Row, New York, NY).
Yin, R.K., 1984, Case study research: Design and methods (Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA).